## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 18 05

__ __ __ __ __ _
TCF Nat io na l Ba nk
, *

* Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

. Ben S. Bern an ke ; J an et L. Yelle n; * Kev in M. W ars h; Eli zab et h A. Du ke ; * Dan ie l K. Taru ll o; Sara h B lo om * Ras ki n, t he Bo ard of Go ve rn or s o f * th e Fed eral Res erv e Sy st em , in th ei r * of fic ia l ca pa ci ti es ; J oh n Wals h, * Co m pt ro ll er o f th e Cu rren cy , in hi s * of fic ia l ca pa ci ty, *

* Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees

. *

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ *

* Am eri can Ban ke rs Ass oc ia ti on ; * Co ns um er Ba nk ers Ass oc ia ti on ; * Cred it Uni on Nati on al Ass oc ia ti on ; * Fi na nc ia l Se rv ic es Ro un dt ab le ; * In de pe nd en t Co m

m un it y Ban ke rs of * Am eri ca; Mi d- Si ze Ba nk Co al it io n o f * Am eri ca; Sta te Ban ke rs Ass oc ia ti on s; * Nati on al Ass oc ia ti on of F ed eral Cred it * Uni on s; Econ om is ts an d l aw an d *

eco no m ic s s ch ol ars ; Th e Cl eari ng * Hou se Ass oc ia ti on L.L.C., *

* Am ic i o n b eh al f of

App el la nt , *Mer ch an ts Pay m en t Co al it io n; Ret ai l *

Lit ig at io n C en te r; M DL-17 20 Cla ss * Pl ai nt iff s, *

* Am ic i o n B eh al f of

App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 16 , 20 11 Fi le d: Ju ne 29 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

TCF Nati on al Ban k su ed to en joi n a po rti on of th e Dod d- Fran k W al l St reet Refo rm Act of 20 10 th at wil l li m it th e rat e so m e fin an ci al in st it ut io ns m ay ch arg e fo r
pr oc es si ng de bi t-c ard tra ns act io ns

. At th e ou ts et of th e pr oc eed in gs , TCF m ov ed fo r
a p rel im in ary in

jun ct io n, an d t he di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. We affi rm

. 1

I.

On Ju ly 21
, 20 10
, Co ng res s pa ss ed th e Dod d- F ran k W al l St reet Refo rm an d
Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Act. Pu b. L. No. 11 1- 20 3, 12 4 St at

. 13 76 (2 01 0)

. Sect io n 10 75
of th e Act, kn own as th e Dur bi n Am en dm en t, am en de d th e Elec tro ni c Fu nd Tran sf er Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16 93 et se q. , by ad di ng se ve ral pr ov is io ns reg ul a t in g de bi t-c ard
in te rch an ge fees

. Th e n ew pr ov is io ns au th or iz e th e Bo ard of Gov ern or s of th e Fed eral Res erv e Sy st em ("B oa rd ") to se t th e "i nt erch an ge t r an sa ct io n fee th at an is su er [o f de bi t card s] m ay rece iv e or ch arg e wit h res pe ct to an el ect ro ni c de bi t

The Hon or ab le Lawren ce L. Pi ers ol
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.
-2

-t r an sa ct io n." § 16 93 o- 2( a)(1 ). By st at ut e, "[t ]he am ou nt of an y in te rch an ge

tra ns act io n fee th at an is su er m ay rece iv e or ch arg e wit h res pe ct to an el ect ro ni c de bi t

tra ns act io n sh al l be reas on ab le an d pr op or ti on al to th e co st in cu rred by th e is su er wit h

res pe ct to th e tr an sa ct io n." § 1 69 3o -2 (a)( 2)

.

The ne w pr ov is io ns al so ch arg ed th e Bo ard wit h pr om ul ga ti ng reg ul at io ns "t o

es ta bl is h st an da rd s fo r as se ss in g whe th er th e am ou nt of an y in te rch an ge tra ns act io n fee

. . . is reas on ab le an d pro po rti on al to th e co st in cu rred by th e is su er wit h res pe ct

to th e tra ns act io n." § 16 93 o- 2( a)(3 )(A). In m ak in g th is de te rm in at io n, th e Bo ard is

to "co ns id er th e fu nc ti on al si m il ari ty be twee n

. . . el ect ro ni c de bi t tra ns act io ns [ ] an d
. . . check in g tra ns act io ns th at are req ui red wit hi n th e Fed eral Res erv e ba nk syste m
to cl ear at pa r." § 16 93 o- 2( a)(4 )(A). The Bo ard m us t fu rth er di st in gu is h b e twee n "t he in crem en ta l co st in cu rred by an is su er fo r th e ro le of th e is su er in th e

au th or iz at io n, cl eara nc e, or se tt le m en t of a pa rti cu la r el ect ro nic de bit tra ns act io n" an d
"o th er c o s t s in cu rred by an is su er whi ch are no t sp eci fic to a pa rti cu la r el ect ro ni c de bi t tra ns act io n." § 16 93 o- 2( a)(4 )(B)

. The la tt er co st s "s ha ll no t be co ns id ered " by
th e Bo ard

. Id

. Im

po rta nt ly, is su ers wit h "as se ts " le ss th an te n bi ll io n do ll ars are

ex em pt fro m th es e reg ul at io ns . § 1 69 3o -2 (a)( 6)

.

TCF is a na ti on al ba nk in g as so ci at io n wit h as s e t s i n ex ces s of te n bi ll io n do ll ars

. TCF is su es de bi t card s al on g wit h it s che ck in g acco un ts an d cu rren tl y us es th e Vis a ne two rk to is su e de bi t card s. Pu rs ua nt to a co nt ract be twee n TCF an d Vis a, Vis a ha s th e rig ht to se t th e in te rch an ge rat e, whi ch by th e di st ric t co ur t's cal cu la ti on , ha s av erag ed ap pr ox im at el y for ty-eig ht cen ts pe r tr an sa ct io n.

Co nc ern ed ab ou t th e im

pa ct of th es e ne w pr ov is io ns , whi ch m ay res ul t in a red uc ti on of fees to twel ve cen ts or l es s pe r tra ns act io n un de r pr op os ed reg ul at io ns by th e Bo ard
, TCF fil ed su it to en joi n th e Dur

bi n Am en dm en t. In it s su it
, TC F
al le ge s th at §§ 16 93 o- 2( a)(2 ), (a)( 4)
, an d (a)( 6) are faci al ly un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se th es e pr ov is io ns wil l req ui re th e Bo ard to se t an in t e r c h a n ge rat e be lo w th e co st of

-3

-p r o vi di ng de bi t-c ard se rv ic es

. TCF al so al le ge s th at th es e pr ov is io ns arb it rari l y

ex em p t s mall er is su ers fro m th e Bo ard 's rat e reg ul at io ns

. Thi s, acco rd in g to TCF,
vi ol at es TCF's du e-p ro ces s an d eq ua l-p ro te ct io n rig h t s p r o v id ed fo r in th e Fi fth
Am en dm en t.

At th e ou ts et of th e pr oc eed in gs , TCF m ov ed fo r a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n, an d
th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at TCF was un li ke ly to pr ev ai l on th e m eri ts

. The di st ric t co ur t reac he d th is co nc lu si on aft er fin di ng th at th e ch al le ng ed

pr ov is io ns of t he Durb in Am en dm en t were on ly s ub ject to rat io na l-b as is rev ie w on bo th TCF's du e

- p ro ces s an d eq ua l-p ro te ct io n cl ai m s an d th at th e pr ov is io ns pa ss ed
th is hi gh ly de fere nt ia l st an da rd of rev ie w. The di st ric t co ur t fu rth er fo un d th at TCF
di d no t ha ve a su ffi ci en t pr op ert y in te res t to rai se a du e-p ro ces s ch al le ng e gi ve n th at TCF's inter es t in fu tu re in te rch an ge fees was hi gh ly sp ecu la ti ve be cau se Vis a ret ai ne d
th e rig ht to al te r th e fees at wil l an d be cau se th e ba nk in g in du st ry is hi gh ly reg ul at ed

. TCF ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g it s m ot io n fo r a p rel im in ary in

jun ct io n.

II.

"We rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's gr a nt of a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n fo r ab us e of
di sc ret io n, gi vi ng de fere nc e to th e di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t." Von ag e Hol di ng s Co rp . v . Ne b. Pu b. Se r v

. C o mm ' n, 56 4 F.3 d 90 0, 90 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). An ab us e of
di sc ret io n m ay oc cu r whe n th e di s t ric t co ur t res ts it s de ci si on on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact ua l fin di ng s or erro ne ou s le ga l co nc lu si on s. Co y ne 's & Co

. v. Ene sc o, LLC, 55 3
F.3 d 11 28
, 11 31 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). In de te rm in in g whe th er to is su e a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n ag ai ns t a du ly en act ed st at ut e, th e di st ric t co ur t m us t co ns id er: (1 ) whe th er th e m ov an t is "l ik el y to pr ev ai l on th e m eri ts "; (2 ) th e th reat of irr ep arab le ha rm to th e

m ov an t; (3 ) th e st at e of ba la nc e b e t w e e n th is ha rm an d th e in jury th at gr an ti ng th e in jun ct io n wil l in fli ct on o t h e r p a r ti es li ti ga nt ; an d (4 ) th e pu bl ic in te res t. Pl an ne d

-4

-Pare nt ho od Mi nn ., N.D., S.D. v. Ro un ds
, 53 0 F.3 d 72 4, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ); se e al so

Data ph as e Sy s., In c. v. C L Sys., Inc ., 64 0 F .2d 10 9, 1 13 (8t h C ir. 1 98 1)

.

In th is cas e, TCF is ch al le ng in g th e faci al va li di ty of th e Dur bi n Am en dm en t.
"A faci al ch al le ng e to a le gi sl at iv e Act is , o f co ur se , t he m os t di ffi cu lt ch al l e ng e to

m ou nt su cces sf

ul ly, si nc e th e ch al le ng er m us t es ta bl is h th at no se t of ci rcu m st an ces

ex is ts un de r whi ch th e Act wou ld be va li d." Uni te d St at es v. Sal ern o, 48 1 U.S. 73 9,
74 5 (1 98 7) ; se e al so W as h. St at e Gran ge v. W as h. St at e Rep ub li can Part y , 55 2 U.S.
44 2, 44 9– 50 (2 00 8) (rea ffi rm in g th e Sal ern o te st ou ts id e th e co nt ex t of cert ai n Fi rs t
Am en dm en t ch al le ng es ). Thi s is be cau se f a c i al ch al le ng es "ru n co nt rary to th e fu nd am en ta l pr in ci pl e of jud ic ia l res tra in t th at co ur ts sh ou ld ne it he r an ti ci pa te a
qu es ti on of co ns ti tu ti on al la w in ad va nc e of th e ne ces si ty of de ci di ng it no r fo rm ul at e

a ru le o f c o n s t i t u t io na l la w b ro ad er th an is req ui red by t he pr eci se fact s to whi ch it
is to be ap pl ie d." W as h. St at e Gran ge , 55 2 U.S. a t 4 5 0 ( i n te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) . W it h t he se pri nc ip le s i n m in d, we t ur n t o TCF 's a rg um en ts

.

A.

TCF arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g T CF 's m ot io n fo r a pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n b ecau se th e d is tri ct co ur t re li ed on erro ne ou s le ga l an d
fact ua l fin di ng s whe n co nc lu di ng th at TCF is no t li ke ly to pr ev ai l on it s du e-p ro ces s cl ai m . TCF sp eci fic al ly ass ert s th at th e co ur t s ho ul d h av e su bjec te d t he ch al le ng ed

pr ov is io ns to a m or e st rin ge nt co nf is cat or y -rat e an al y si s an d no t a rat io na l-b as is te st be cau se th e Dur

bi n Am en dm en t effe ct iv el y li m it s ho w m uc h TCF m ay ch arg e fo r it s de bi t-c ard se rv ic es

. TCF m ai nt ai ns th at , un de r a co nf is cat or y -rat e an al y si s, no se t of
ci rcu m st an ces ex is ts in whi ch th e ch al le ng ed pr ov is io ns w o u l d be co ns ti tu ti on al
be cau se § 1 69 3o -2 (a)( 4) (B) re qu ire s t he Bo ard to set an in te rch an ge rat e be lo w t he

co st of p ro vi di ng de bi t-c ard ser vi ces

. TCF al le ge s th at th e rat e m us t be be lo w cos t si nc e § (a)( 4) (B) pr ev en ts th e Bo ard fro m fact or in g in ne ces sa ry ov erh ead de bi t-c ard

co st s "n ot sp eci fic to a pa rti cu la r el ect ro ni c de bt tra ns act io n," su ch as pr ov id in g a cal l

-5

-cen te r fo r cu st om er care

. TCF fu rth er as se rts th at it po ss es se s a su ffi ci en t pr op ert y

in te res t in it s on go in g de bi t-c ard bu si ne ss an d in it s co nt ract ua l rel at io ns hi p wit h Vis a
to en ab le it to ch al le ng e th e Dur bi n Am en dm en t on du e-p ro ces s gr ou nd s. W e di sa gr ee.

The Fi fth Am en dm en t sta te s in pa rt th at "[n ]o pe rs on sh al l

. . . be de pr iv ed of
li fe, li be rty, or pr op ert y , wit ho ut du e p r o ces s of la w." Part ie s m ak in g su bs ta nt iv edu e-p ro ces s cl ai m s co nc ern in g ec o n o m ic reg ul at io ns ge ne ral ly "fa ce a hi gh ly
de fere nt ia l rat io na l ba si s te st ," whe reb y "t he bu rd en is on th e on e co m pl a in in g of a du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n to es ta bl is h th at th e l e g is la tu re ha s act ed in an arb it rary an d
irr at io na l way ." Kos te r v. Ci ty of Dav en po rt, Io wa, 18 3 F.3 d 76 2, 76 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it t e d )

. Si m il arl y , "[t ]he st an da rd fo r de te rm in in g whe th er a st at e pr ic e-co nt ro l reg ul at io n is co ns ti tu ti on al un de r th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se is well es ta bl is he d: Pri ce co n t ro l is un co ns ti tu ti on al if arb it rary, di sc riminat or y , or de m on st rab ly irr el ev an t to th e po li cy th e le gi sl at ur e is free to ad op t." Pen ne ll v. Ci ty of San Jo se , 48 5 U.S. 1, 11 (1 98 8) (al te rat i o n s o mitt ed ) ( i n t e rn al qu ot at io n m ark s)

. Si nc e "t he Co ns ti tu ti on pr ot ect s rat he r th an cre a t e s
pr op ert y in te res ts ," Ph il li ps v. W as h. Leg al Fo un d., 52 4 U.S. 15 6, 16 4 (1 99 8)
, "[t ]he

po ss es si on of a pr ot ect ed li fe, li be rty, or pr op ert y in te res t is a co nd it io n pr eced en t to in vo ki ng th e g ov ern m en t's ob li ga ti on to pr ov id e du e pr oc es s o f la w." Mi nn eap ol is
Tax i Owner s Co al
., In c. v. Ci ty o f M i n ne ap ol is
, 57 2 F.3 d 50 2, 51 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Thu s, po ss es si on of a pr ot ect ed pr op ert y in te res t is al so a co nd it io n pr eced en t to ei th er a rat io na l

- b as is rev ie w or a Pen ne ll -type

co nf is cat or y -rat e an al y si s.

Here, ev en as su m in g th at TCF po ss es se s a su ffi ci en t pr op ert y in te res t to rai se

a du e-p ro ces s ch al le ng e, we do no t be li ev e th at TCF is li ke ly to pr ev ai l. As an in it ia l

m at te r, we are no t co nv in ced th at a co nf is cat or y -rat e an al y si s ap pl ie s or th at it wou ld
affo rd TCF rel ie f. The Dur bi n Am en dm en t on ly res tri ct s ho w m uc h cert ai n fin an ci al
in st it ut io ns is su in g a de bi t card m ay ch arg e fo r pr oc es si ng a tra ns act io n; it do es no t

-6

-res tri ct ho w m uc h th os e in st it ut io ns m ay ch arg e th ei r cu st om ers fo r th e pr iv il eg e of

us in g th ei r de bi t-c ard s e r vi ces

. Si nc e TCF is free un de r th e Dur bi n Am en dm en t to

as se ss fees on it s cu st om ers to of fs et an y lo ss es un de r th e Dur bi n Am en dm en t, we are sk ep ti cal th at th e Dur

bi n Am en dm en t h as ev en crea te d a su ffi ci en t p ric e co nt ro l o n TCF's de bi t-c ard bu si ne ss so as to tri gg er a co nf is cat or y -rat e an al y si s or th at th e la w

co ul d, in fact
, pr od uc e a co nf is cat or y rat e. In de ed
, th e he art of an y co nf is cat or y -rat e cl ai m is th e ab il it y to sh ow th at th e go ve rn m en t ha s se t a m ax im um pr ic e fo r a go od

or se rv ic e an d th at th e rat e is be lo w th e co st of pr od uc ti on (fac to rin g in a reas on ab le

rat e of ret ur n)
, whi ch TCF has si m pl y no t sh own on th is reco rd

. See In re Perm ia n 2

Bas in Area Ra te Cas es , 39 0 U.S. 7 47
, 76 8– 69 (19 68 ); s ee al so Pen ne ll , 48 5 U.S. at
11 –1 2 (c ol le ct in g c as es ).

TCF at te m

pt s to av oi d th is co nc lu si on by arg ui ng th at m ark et p r e ss ur es wil l

pr ev en t i t fr om

ass es si ng cu st om er fees be cau se sm al le r ba nk s ar e ex em pt fro m th e Dur bi n Am en dm en t an d wil l be ab le to av oi d as se ss in g cu st om er fees

. By TCF's own ad m is si on , ho wev er, Vis a is cu rren tl y bo un d to of fer al l fin an ci al in st it ut io ns th e

sa m e in te rch an ge rat e, an d as su ch
, th e reco rd is no t cl ear th at sm al le r ba nk s wil l ha ve

a co mp e t i t i ve ad va nt ag e. Mo re fu nd am en ta ll y , th ou gh
, si nc e th e so ur ce of th e 3

The Bo ard al so ass ert s t ha t we sh ou ld no t ap pl y a co nf is cat or y -rat e an al y si s 2
to TC F 's du e-p ro ces s cl ai m be cau se th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s im pl ic it ly li m it ed

co nf is cat or y -rat e juri sp ru de nc e to ci rcu m st an ces in vo lv in g ut il it ie s or ut il it y li ke

en ti ti es , whi ch TCF is no t. The Bo ard al te rn at iv el y as se rts th at th e co nf is cat or y -rat e

an al y si s is es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e as th e rat io na l-b as is te st gi ve n th e us e of si m il ar te rm s in bo th te st s su ch th at it is im m at eri al whi ch te st we em pl oy. Giv en ou r co nc lu si on , we fi nd no ne ed to co m

m en t o n e it he r arg um en t.

Thi s is es pe ci al ly tru e in li gh t of rece nt co m m en ts by Ben Bern an ke
, Ch ai rm an 3 of th e Bo ard , bef

or e a Sen at e co m

m it te e h eari ng . He tes ti fie d i n p art :

By th e st at ut e, th e sm al le r in st it ut io ns wil l be ex em pt fro m th e s e

res tri ct io ns , bu t th ere is th e po ss ib i l it y , as I m en ti on ed
, th at ei th er be cau se m erch an ts wou ld n't acce pt th e m or e ex pe ns iv e card s or be cau se

-7

-al le ge d m ark et pr es su re is an eco no m ic cl as si fic at io n co nt ai ne d in th e Dur bi n Am en dm en t, TCF's arg um en t wou ld be on e qu al -p ro te ct io n gr ou nd s, as di sc us se d
be lo w, a nd n o t o n a du e-p ro ces s gr ou nd un de r th e co nf is cat or y -rat e do ct rin e. Thi s i s b e c a us e no le ga l pr oh ib it io n ex is ts ag ai ns t TCF fu ll y reco up in g th e co st s of i t s de bi t-c ard ser vi ces by ass es si ng cu st om er fe es

.

Set ti ng as id e th e co nf

is ca t o r y- r at e an al y si s, we co nc lu de th at th e ch al le ng ed

pr ov is io ns of th e Dur

bi n Amen d men t su rv iv e rat io na l ba si s rev ie w fo r th e reas on s
st at ed by th e di st ric t co ur t, na m el y th at "Co ng res s's de ci si on to li nk in te rch an ge fees

to is su in g ba nk s' act ua l co st s be ars a reas on ab le rel at io ns hi p to two pr op er le gi sl at iv e
pu rp os es : (1 ) to en su re th at su ch fees are reas on ab le an d (2 ) to pr ev en t ret ai le rs an d

co ns um ers fro m

ha vi ng to be ar a di sp ro po rti on at e am ou nt of co st s of the de bi t card syste m ." Acco rd in gl y , ba se d up on th e cu rren t st at e of th e reco rd (wh ic h m ay ch an ge in th e fu tu re), we do no t be li ev e th at TCF is li ke ly to pr ev ai l on it s du e-p ro ces s cl ai m

.

B.

TCF al so arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t cou rt abu se d it s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g TCF 's

m ot io n fo r a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n be cau se of a le ga l erro r in an al y zi ng TCF's eq ua lp r o t e c t io n cl ai m

. TCF co nc ed es th at th e ch al le ng ed pr ov is io ns of th e Dur bi n Am en dm en t are su bjec t on ly to a r a t i o n a l

- b as is rev ie w si nc e th e pr ov is io ns do no t in vo lv e an y su sp ect cl as si fic at io n. TCF arg ue s, ho wev er, th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d
in ap pl y in g th e te st be cau se no le gi ti m at e go ve rn m en ta l in te res t ex is ts in fav or in g on e cl as s o f ba nk s fr om

an ot he r in th is co nt ex t. Thi s ar gu m en t i s m eri tl es s.

ne two rk s wou ld no t be will in g to ha ve a two -ti ered pri ci ng syste m , it 's
po ss ib le th at in pr act ic e th ey wou ld no t be ex em pt fro m th e -- fro m th e lo wer i nt erch an ge fee.

Dod d- Fran k Im

pl em en ta ti on : Heari ng Befo re th e S. Co m m

. on Ban ki ng , Hou s., & Urb an Affai rs , 11 2t h C on g. (2 01 1) , ava il ab le at 2 01 1 WL 54 96 51

.
-8

-"In area s of so ci al an d eco no m ic po li cy , a st at ut or y cl as si fic at io n th at ne it he r

pr oc eed s al on g su sp ect li ne s no r in fri ng es fu nd am en ta l co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s m us t be

up he ld ag ai ns t [an ] eq ua l pr ot ect io n ch al le ng e if th ere is an y reas on ab ly co nc ei va bl e
st at e of fact s th at co ul d pr ov id e a rat io na l ba si s fo r th e cl as si fic at io n." FCC v. Bea ch
Co m m c'n s, In c., 50 8 U.S. 3 0 7
, 3 1 3 ( 1 9 9 3)

. In th is cas e, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t

co ur t's c o n c l u s i on th at th e Dur bi n Am en dm en t's di st in ct io n be twee n la rg er an d

sm al le r is su e r s of de bi t-c ard s is rat io na ll y rel at ed to th e go ve rn m en t's le gi ti m at e in te res ts in pr ot ect in g sm al le r ba nk s, whi ch do no t enjo y th e co m pe ti ti ve ad va nt ag e of th ei r la rg er co un te rp art s an d whi ch pr ov id e va lu ab l e d iv ers it y in th e fin an ci al
in du st ry , an d in en su rin g c o n s um er acce ss to de bi t card s. See ge ne ral ly Fi tz ge ral d

v. Rac in g Ass 'n of Cen t. Io wa, 53 9 U.S. 10 3, 10 9 (2 00 3)

. Ac c o r di ng ly, gi ve n th e

cu rren t reco rd
, we do no t be li ev e th at TCF is li ke ly to pr ev ai l on it s eq ua l-p ro te ct io n
arg um en t an d do no t be li ev e it is ne ces sa ry t o e v a lu at e th e rem ai ni ng Data ph as e fact or s. See Pl an ne d Pare nt ho od , 5 30 F.3 d at 7 3 2 ( " I f t he pa rty wi th th e bu rd en of

pr oo f m ak es a th res ho ld sh owi ng th at it is li ke ly to pr ev ai l on th e m eri ts , th e di st ric t

co ur t s ho ul d t he n p ro ceed to weig h t he ot he r Dat ap ha se fact or s." ).

III.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of TCF's m ot io n fo r a p rel im in ary in

jun ct io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-